Makino, Reiko

English

KU ScholarWorks

THE DISTRlBUTIONAL AND INTERPRET A TIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN INDEFINITE PRONOUN AND A GENERAL NOUN A JAPANESE CASE Reiko Makmo University of Ilhnms at Urbana-Champaign Introductmn The Japanese general noun mono '(tangible) thmg' and no, a Japanese mdefmite pronoun, seem to sometimes be mterchangeable S1tuatlon at a flower shop la K.irroi bara, an-masu ka? Yellow rose have-POL Q 'Do you have a yellow rose?' lb Sum mono/no nara ari-masu ga White enuty 1f have-POL 'I have a white entity/one ' At other umes, they are not mterchangeable (D1cuonary/encyclopecha explanauon) Kyooryuu-wa, ooku monol*no-wa 35 meetoru-o kosu Dmosaur-TOP big enuty-TOP 35 meter-ACC exceed 'As for dmosaurs, a big one exceeds 35 meters m body length ' Tins paper shows that the d1stnbuuon ofnon-grammat1c1zed uses of mono and no follows as a pragmatic consequence of the syntacuc and semanuc differences between them 2 Data discussed The clear cases of mono and no as nouns are discussed m this paper The so-called grammauc1zed uses of them (so-called "complemenuzer"[no] and "auxiliary verbs" [mono and no]) are not discussed Mono and no as "sentence fmal parucles" are also excluded from tlus chscuss10n 3 Syntactic difference mono can function as an NP, but no cannot The difference between mono and no is that mono can funcllon as an NP, hke other nouns, but no cannot, as shown below Zyon-wa mono-l*no-o yoku kau John-TOP thmg-ACC often buy 'John often buys thmgs ' 276 No has to have a modifier or a complement to be acceptable, as shown below 4 Zyon-wa !l!kfil monolno-o kau John-TOP~ thmg-ACC buy 'John buys expensive thmgs/ones' The fact that no cannot funcuon as an NP demonstrates that no 1s not a syntacucally mdependent noun 4 Semantic ddTerence between mono and no This sectton demonstrates that mono has its own meaning 'enttty', just as other ordmary nouns have their own meanmgs No refers to a member of a set ot ent1Ues1 4 1 Mono means 'entity' Mono means 'entity' If this 1s true, then mono occurs as the object of a verb that stnctly subcategonzes for an entity as its grammaucal object as shown below 5 Otsu mono-o taberu Dehc10us thmg-ACC eat '(One) eats a dehc10us thmg' It follows that when a verb strictly subcategonzes for a s1tuauon as its grammaucal object, the sentence with mono should be unacceptable Suru 'do' 1s a verb that subcategonzes for a s1tuauon as its grammattcal object When suru has mono as 1ts object, the sentence 1s unacceptable, as shown below However when 1t takes koro 's1tuat10n' as its object, the sentence 1s acceptable 6 h *mono/koto-o sum Good thmg-ACC do '(One) does a good thmg ' 4 2 No 1s mterpreted aga1DSt a set of entities and 1t as anaphoric to a member of the set No 1s an mdefm1te pronoun and needs to have a reference set which 1s shared between the speaker and the addressee from which the meanmg of no can be mterpreted Without such a set, 1ts meamng 1s not mterpretable The set consists of 'ent1ues' In the above sentence 5, as predicted, no can replace mono and the sentence 1s acceptable as shown below 7 Otsu no-o taberu Debc1ous -ACC eat '(One) eats a dehc10us one ' 1 No can also have a set of s1tuauons This paper does not discuss these cases 277 Unhke the English one-anaphora discussed m Webber (1979) and Dahl (1989), the Japanese mdefm1te pronoun no can take a wider range as a set No can take the set of all the enuues m the speaker's mental representation that the speaker beheves that she shares with the addressee One such s1tuauon ts where the speaker and the addressee are seeing the same set of objects m the speech context As shown below, when the speaker and the addressee are walkmg together, the speaker can use no to ask about an obJect m sight S1tuauon The Sllea1cer and the addressee are wa!lani: togemer The speaker finds soroet!uni: red and asks t!ie addressee about n Ano akai no-wa nan desu ka That red -TOP what COP Q 'What ts that red thmg?' It 1s predicted that no ts not used when the speaker does not believe that the same mental representauon 1s shared with the addressee One situation 1s where the speaker and the addressee are apart and do not see tile same set of objects As shown below, no 1s not used when the speaker 1s talkmg on the phone to the addressee S1n1atmn The Slleaker and the addressee are ta!kmg on the nhone 9 Ano akai #no-wa nan desu ka That red -TOP what COP Q 'What ts that red tlltng?' No ts used to refer to a parucular member of a relevant set that tl1e speaker beheves tile addressee shares w1tl1 the speaker If this 1s true, tl1en when tile speaker does not refer to a member that has specific properues, 1t 1s predicted t11at no 1s not used One such s1tuauon 1s where tl1e number of me members of the set 1s relevant to the speaker In tl1e followmg examples, the speaker wants an apple/apples It does not matter which apple she gets Smee slle makes no reference to any member w1tl1 any parucular property out of tile set of apples, the pattern [number+ classifier for apple tl4 or ko], mstead of no, appears as predicted Situation Buymg BJlPles 10 Rmgo, arimasu ka Apple have-POL Q 'Do you have apples?' lla Htto-tul*no kudasai One-CL please give me 'Gtve me one ' 12a ~ kudasai One-CL please give me G1veme one' 13 *No kudasai please give me '(Intended) Give me one ' llb Huta-tu/*no kudasai two-CL please give me 'Give me two ' 12b ~kudas.u two-CL please give me 'Gtve me two ' 278 S Alternataon between mono and no The previous section showed that the general noun mono refers to an entity, and that the mdefimte pronoun no can be used anaphonc to a member of a set of enuues Therefore, altematmn between mono and no can occur However, mono and no are not free vanatmns This secuon shows that the dtstnbuuonal and mterpretabonal differences between mono and no follow from the syntacuc and semantic differences between them as a pragmauc consequence After presenung the syntactic cond1uon m secuon 5 1, four cases demonstrate that this 1s indeed the case m secuons 5 2 to 5 5 In every case, the properues held by mdefintte pronouns do not hold m the cases where mono occurs The previous section 1s summanzed as follows concemmg the syntax and semantics of mono and no [1] Mono 1s a noun It can funcuon as an NP It means "entity" {2] No 1s an mdefimte pronoun It cannot function as an NP It can refer to an enuty Furthermore, 1l 1s proposed that the Japanese no occurs only when the speaker mutually believes that the addressee has a relevant set m mmd against which no can be interpreted S 1 Syntactic condition For the mono/no altemauon, the syntax requires that the altemauon occurs only when mono funcuons as an N' as shown below, smce no cannot funcuon as an NP 14 Zyon-wa mono-/*no-o yoku kau John-TOP thmg-ACC often buy John often buys thmgs ' 15 Zyon-wa mkm monolno-o kau John-TOP~ thmg-ACC buy John buys expensive thmgs/ones ' When this syntactic cond1uon 1s met, mono and no can alternate 111 a pnnc1pled fashion The proposed hypothesis makes the followmg four general pred1cuons about their alternations In all four cases, some parts of the cond1uon about no as an mdefimte pronoun are not met S 2 Whether or not the speaker can assume the addressee's mmd The semanuc difference between mono and no 1s that no needs a reference set that the speaker beheves the addressee shares with the speaker m order to mterpret 1t However, mono does not The difference predicts that when the speaker cannot assume the addressee's mental representauon m which there 1s a relevant set, only mono occurs No does not occur m such a situation Thus, when the speaker addresses a mass audience (such as a fonnal book wntmg or a pubhc lecture) and not a parucular 111d1v1dual, mono can be used but not no As shown below, man encyclopedia, mono 1s used, but not no 279 D1ct1onary/encyclopedta explanation 16 Kyooryuu-wa, oolm monol#no-wa 35 meetoru-o kosu Dmosaur-TOP big enUty-TOP 35 meter-ACC surpass 'As for dmosaurs, a big one goes beyond 35 meters m body length ' Tue difference between mono and no also predicts that no is acceptable when the speaker can assume the addressee's mmd This 1s because the speaker can assume that the addressee has a relev.mt set agamst which no is mterpreted Thus, no can be used 1f the above sentence were uttered m a casual conversdt1on as shown below Casual conyeri.allon 17 Kyooryuu-wa, oolm no-wa 35 meetoru-o kosu yo Dmosaur-TOP big -TOP 35 meter-ACC surpass SFP 'As for dmosaurs, a big one goes beyond 35 meters m body length ' This phenomenon 1s usually supulated as a style difference without any explanauon This proposed hypothesis, however, can accooot for this phenomenon Therefore, It does not have to stipulate for the occurrence of mono and no as a style difference 5 3 Whether or not the speaker can depend on the addressee's work of figurmg out the relevant set In usmg no, the speaker assumes that the addressee can figure out what the relevant set 1s In other words, the speaker depends on the addressee's work to convey what he wants to convey In contrast, m usmg mono, the speaker does not assume that the addressee has a relevant set, therefore the speaker does not depend on the addressee It follows that m a s1tua11on where 1t 1s not swtable for the speaker to depend on the addressee, mono is favored, but not no This contnbutes to pohteness or formahty (e g speaking to a socially high-ranking addressee m Japanese society) There 1s a particular addressee, unhke the mass audience case However, assummg the addressee's mmd and making the addressee figure out what the speaker 1s refernng to 1s not fitung to one's lower social status and 1s therefore not pohte As predicted, mono is used m the followmg examples The use of no 1s grammatical but not favorable m these cases From a secretary to the pres1ctent 18 President• Kaig1-no tokl, OHP-o das1te-01te kure Meeung-GEN ume overhead proJector-ACC take out for future give 'Please get an overhead projector ready for the meetmg ' Secretary Ookn mono/#no-n1-1tas1masyoo ka, 111sru mono/#no n1-1tas1masyoo ka Big thmg decide-POL Q small thmg decide-POL Q 'Shall I brmg a big one or a small one?' Tue hypothesis makes an mverse pred1ct1on In a s1tuat1on where the speaker can depend on the addressee to figure out the set, no can be used This contributes to casualness or sohdanty between the speaker and the addressee As 280 predicted, when the same conversatton about the overhead projector occurs between fnends, no occurs as shown below Between fnends 19 Friend 1 Kaig1-no tokl, OHP-o das1te-otte Meeting-GEN tune overhead projector-ACC take out for future 'Please get an overhead projector ready for the meeting ' Friend 2 Ook11 no!#mono-m-s1yoo ka, tusai no/#mono m-s1yoo ka Big thmg decide Q small thmg decide Q 'Shall I bnng a big one or a small one?' The use of mono ts not favored between the speaker and the addressee who share a casual relauonsh1p This 1s because the speaker 1s m a situation m which she can depend on the addressee to figure out what the relevant set 1s Should the speaker choose not to, 1t mdtcates that she does not recogmze the close relat10nsh1p Therefore, 1t results m the addressee rece1vmg a cold unpress1on from the speaker 5 4 Whether the speaker 1s p1ckmg out a member from the set, or referring to the category itself From the fact that no refers to a member of a relevant set, It follows that when there are members clearly enumerated m the speech context, but the speaker does not pick out any particular member, no 1s predicted not to occur Mono occurs mstead One such situation is where the speaker mentions a category 'entity' with a ceruun property, then refers to its members as examples In the followmg example, the speaker first descnbes what 1s m the treasure box m a general term Then, the followmg sentence refers to examples, such as circulars and an abacus The speaker uses mono m (20a), mstead of no, when he mentions the category, as shown below S1tuat10n A boy's treasure box There are many thmgs stored ma boy's treasure box that adults never expect Newspaper adverusements, nails, leaves, etc 20a Sono booru-bako-no naka-ru-wa, That cardboard box-GEN ms1de-m-TOP otona-no omo1-mo-kakenai mono!#no-ga Sllllatte-aru adult-GEN expect-NEG thmg-NOM store-RES 'In the cardboard box, thmgs are stored that adults never expect ' 20b Smbun-no hasam1-kookoku, zass1-no huroku-no soroban, Newspaper-GEN circular magazme-GEN appendix-GEN abacus 'CllCUlars, abacus append!xed to a magazme ' Replacmg mono with no changes the mterpretauon due to the different assumption that the speaker has for mono and no When no 1s used, the category expressed by the mono-phrase now refers to a particular member m the assumed set Unless the speaker believes that there 1s such set that the addressee shares with the speaker, the sentence 1s not felicitous 281 From the above clatm that mono refers to a category, and no refers to a member, comes three pred1cuons First, when the speaker wants to negate something m a strong fashion, mono occurs, and no ts not favored Tius 1s because 1ust negatmg a member of a set 1s not strong enough The speaker negates the whole category to make a strong negauon Thus, mon, the colloquial fom of mono, occurs when a Jumor-h1gh student strongly negates what his father expresses as shown below S1tuat10n A son ta]ks back to his father about his computer skills 21 Father Pasokon, 1Z1kureru zyanai Personal computer play with COP-NEG 'You are good with the personal computer, aren't you?' Son Anna mon!#no, tokug1-no uu-m-mo ham-nee yo Like that thmg special sktll-GEN ms1de-m-even mcluded-NEG SFP 'That land of thmg, that's no special skdl" When mono IS replaced by no, the strong negauon effect disappears This 1s because no does not negate the whole category No brmgs up a set that the speaker assumes the addressee would share with the speaker The computer sklll 1s one of the members of the set Other members m the same category are not negdted Snmlarly, m a strong negauve command, mono, 1s predicted to occur No 1s not favored Thus mono is used when the speaker tells her children not to buy a worthless item, as shown below S1ruat10n A mother scolds her children 22 Sonna tumaranai mono/#no kau-n-Jailat Like that worthless thmg buy COP-NEG 'Don't buy that land of worthless thmg'' The use of no 1s not broad enough to make a strong order Third, when the speaker wants to mqwre about some enuty m a strong fashion, mono occurs No 1s not favored This 1s because JUSt asking about a particular member 1s not strong enough The speaker mqwres about the whole category to make a strong quesuon Thus, the speaker uses mono when the speaker asks her child why the child needs the thmg at issue, as shown below S1tuat10n A child 1s askmg her mother to buy sun2Iasses The mother ask:s the ch!ld why she needs it 23 Sonna monol#no naiu-m uu no Like that thmg what-for ts necessary 'Why on earth do you need that kmd of tlung?' When no 1s used m the above sentence, the questmn does not sound as strong as when mono 1s used This is because JUSt asking about a particular member 1s not strong enough to ask the reason why the addressee needs 1t The above demonstrauons explain why no creates a concrete impresSton about its referents, and mono creates genenc mipress10ns about its referents This 1s because mono refers to a category It does not refer to any particular member On the other hand, no picks out a member from the set that the speaker assumes the addressee has m mmd 282 5 5 The speaker's reflexive behef that the addressee has a relevant set m rmnd This last section discusses the reflex1v1ty of belief From the fact that no 1s an mdefimte pronoun, 1t follows that the speaker believes that the addressee has a relevant set m mmd However, believing this much 1s not enough to use no In order to use no felicitously, the speaker must consider the reflexive belief, followmg Green (1989) Two cases demonstrate the relevance of the reflexive belief proposed In both cases, one of the layers of reflexive beliefs 1s not met Therefore mono, but not no, occurs Smee this secuon discusses the altemauon between mono and no, 1t only mcludes a set of ennl!es whose most mformauve form 1s mono 'enuty' such as thmgs unknown to the speaker First, 1t 1s not enough that the speaker believes that the addressee has a relevant set The speaker must believe that the addressee also believes that the addressee has a relevant set m mmd This cond1t1on predicts that when the speaker believes that the addressee 1s not aware that the addressee has a set m mmd, mono can occur, but not no Thus m a s1tuat10n where the speaker believes that the addressee forgot what the relevant set 1s, due to some elapsed ume, no 1s not favored as m (24) Sinmuon Commentmi: about the food m a speech context m which the addressee 1s also present 24 Kono aka! no, 01s11 ne this red delicious SFP 'This red stuff 1s good, isn't 1t?' (Sometune later, the same speaker remembers about 1t and talks to the same addressee) 25 Ano akai mono/#no 01s1-katta ne that red thmg delic1ous-P AST SFP 'That red stuff was good, wasn't 1t?' No 1s felicitous only when the speaker believes that the addressee sun has the same mental representation of the speech scene (this 1s the relevant set here) as the speaker's when the speaker talked about the food Second, there are cases m which 1t 1s not enough that the speaker believes that the addressee believes that the addressee has a relevant set The speaker must believe that the addressee beheves that the speaker knows that the addressee has a relevant set m mmd This conchuon predicts that when the speaker believes that the addressee 1s aware of the set, but the addressee does not believe that the speaker knows about that fact, no does not occur Rather, mono occurs For example, the speaker 1s aslang her child about the location of some food she had seen someume ago When the mother saw 1t together with the child, no 1s predicted to occur, as shown below Situation A thmg that disappeared The mother and the child saw some land of food It disappeared soon and the mother asks the child where he put 1t 26 Koko-m atta no doko-e yat-tta? here-at existed where-to put-PAST 'Where did you put the thmg that was here?' However, when the mother beheves that the child does not beheves that the mother knows that the child has a relevant set m mmd, then mono 1s predicted to occur, as shown below This often happens when children shallow-mmdedly thinks that parents do not know who ate the food 27 Koko-m atta monol#no doko-e yat-ta? 283 here-at existed thmg where-to put-PAST 'Where did you put the thmg that was here?' 6 Conclusion This paper demonstrated that the alternation between mono and no follows from their syntax and semantics as a pragmatic consequence The alternation occurs only when mono 1s not funct1onmg as an NP, smce no cannot funcuon as an NP When some part of the use cond1uon of no is not observed, mono occurs There ate four such cases, 1) when the speaker cannot assume the addressee's mmd, 2) when the speaker can assume the addressee's mmd but cannot depend on the addressee to figure out the relevant set, 3) when the speaker does not pick out a member from the set, and 4) when the speaker's reflexive belief that the addressee has a relevant set m mmd 1s not held REFERENCES Dahl, DA 1984 The structure and function of one-anaphora m English Doctoral D1ssertauon, Department of Lmgmsucs, The Umvers1ty of Mmnesota Green, G M 1989 Pragmatics and natural language understanding fbllsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Association Webber, BL 1979 A formal approach to discourse anaphora Garland Pubhshmg, Inc New York 284 

Distributional and Interpretational Differences between an Indefinite Pronoun and General Noun: a Japanese Case

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/1808/23110/1/malc_1999_276-284_Makino.pdf

Distributional and Interpretational Differences between an Indefinite Pronoun and General Noun: a Japanese Case

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KU ScholarWorks